The cultural properties are at risk and have always been subject to various disastrous problems, both natural and man-made. As debated earlier in Kobe-Tokyo Symposium held last January, cultural heritage is not only exposed to the harms from natural causes but also face consequences from man-made disasters stemming from economic development. The man-made problems are not so sudden, nor unpredictable as natural disaster but could cause just as extensive damage in a relatively slow process, the effect of which become perceptible only after some lapse of time. The so-called development could bring mass destruction to both natural and cultural heritage. But, cultural property is not necessarily high on the list of consideration when economic development is being considered. The conflicting and different interests are promulgated amongst several policy decision levels: national, regional and local. The hot issue is how to balance the development and conservation efforts.

Korea is not alone in facing such difficulties. Economic development, urbanization and modernization are all patterns Korea shares with many countries in Asia and other regions. I like to take this opportunity to review the Korean High-Speed Train Project (hereafter Korean TGV project) and its influence on the cultural heritage so that other countries can benefit from the experience we had in Korea. And hope that it could perhaps prevent other nations from wasting a lot of energy and money. The case under study will demonstrate how the tension arose among the central government, citizens of local communities, other specialists related to the conservation of cultural properties in Korea and how it was finally resolved after a long 5 year debate.

1. Development or Conservation: A Hard Choice

No one disparages the cultural heritage's historic and artistic value in their own country especially the ones registered in the World Heritage List. But dilemma occurs upon developmental plans clashing with the conservation efforts over the cultural heritage found in the area to be developed. In the past 50 years, the incredible process of modernization in Korea has swept the entire country and have also destroyed the numerous cultural and historic sites in the name of better life. No one could possibly estimate the enormous impact of the rapid development over the archaeological and historic sites and about how much of unexcavated cultural properties have been destroyed or simply bulldozed over and laid underneath the industrial buildings and highways. One of the most notorious case in this regard would be the Seoul-Pusan Highway Project completed in 1960s which connects Seoul, the capital of Korea, to the city of Pusan cornered in the southwestern end of Korean Peninsula. The industrialization process has never ceased since and needless to say, the negative impact over the cultural heritage have also continued .

The Korean government beginning in the 90s has launched a new series of critical developmental programs at a national level, one of which was the Korean TGV project. The controversy broke out instantly when the proposed Korean TGV was announced to run through various cultural heritage sites including the city of Kyongju, the home of Sukkuram Buddhist Grotto which was included in the World Heritage List in 1995. Sukkuram Buddhist Grotto is just one of numerous cultural, historical, religious sites and treasures found in the Kyongju and its vicinity. The cultural properties both tangible and intangible in the area are too numerous to be listed here.

The central focus of the debate is whether the economic interests carry more value over cultural properties or vice versa. Many were suspicious of the government's promise that the project will both protect the cultural properties on and near the proposed route and keep the possible damage to those at minimum. The first opposition to the plan was composed of a group of cultural heritage scholars and citizens concerned about the cultural prosperity along with the Ministry of Culture and Sport, responsible for management and preservation of the cultural properties in Korea. This opposition's argument was multifaceted. First, they opposed the project simply because the serious physical damage to the cultural properties in Kyongju would be unavoidable. Secondly, the subsequent development such as building railway stations near the city area would lead to commercial explosion in the area and thus damage the image of the city as a quiet, and relatively well-kept historic city in Korea. The third was that the development, contrary to what some believe, would not contribute to the economic prosperity in the region. Some argue that less development will bring more tourist revenue to the city.

The Ministry of Construction and Traffic, of course, defended its original plan, responding to each criticisms made by the opposing individuals and groups. The Ministry emphasized that, owing to a careful construction plan, the railway development will not necessarily put the cultural properties in danger. It also claimed that the plan would bring positive influence on the local economy that has long been restrained by laws protecting the cultural properties. The logic was simple: faster train will bring more tourists, domestic and foreign, and thus improve the local economy. In fact, some of local residents and developers raised their voices and welcomed the government plan hoping that the project will bring new economic opportunities. To them, the value of the cultural heritage is to be weighed only in the shadow of financial considerations.

Between these pros and cons, there was also a third voice. Some people were sure that there is a reasonable solution which would guarantee both the security of cultural properties and economic prosperity in the region. But, most people felt that it would be as difficult as it sounds.

I inform you of the settlement of this debate in advance: the TGV route, supposed to run through the city center of Kyongju and many historic sites, was changed to the new route which would detour through the outskirts of Kyongju in order to keep the cultural properties intact. The implications of this settlement are not trivial at all. It was the first time that the preservation of national heritage became a major issue in the national policy-making. Through the process, Koreans achieved ever-heightened awareness for the cultural heritage and reached a consensus that the conservation of cultural heritage sometimes requires a serious commitment and sacrifice.

But, this debate, lasting for 5 years, was a painstaking experience for everyone involved. The Ministry of Construction and Traffic still insists that the new route will cost some billion additional dollars for new research and replanning. The numerous hearings and negotiation processes reflect a tremendous amount of time and money for all groups involved, most of which cound have been saved if we had the wisdom to deal better with this type of situation.

If Korea is not alone in facing such difficulties caused by industrialization and modernization, this Korean experience could be used to prevent similar problems for other countries in coping with similar situations.

2. Korean TGV project and the city of Kyongju

The city of Kyongju with the population of 300,000, is located in northern part of Kyungsang Province and was the capital of ancient Silla Kingdom which dominated the Korean peninsula from 57 B.C. to 935 A.D. It does not require much imagination to realize the tremendous variety of cultural and historical heriage instilled in the area. Remarkable monumental and artistic artifacts are so numerous that it is hard to list them all. To list a few, 32 state-designated treasures were founded and the city touts 23 preserved historic sites including the Sukkuram Buddhist Grott, one of the World Heritages. As a capital for Silla Kingdom for almost a thousand years, Kyongju provides rich opportunity for us to learn about the ancient life of Silla and also contains several prehistoric sites that became invaluable in aiding us to better understand the Stone Age Period in Korea. Compared to other historic sites in Korea, the cultural heritage in and Kyonju city itself have been relatively well shielded from the destructive forces of development and modernization. The sheer number of 7 million visitors including foreigners seeking Kyongju every year? exemplifies the attractive beauty and significance of Kyongju as a historical site. It may also reflect the solitariness of Kyongju as one of the last remaining Korean cities preserving the life of the old.

The Trajectory of the Case: A summarized report.

In 1990, the Korean government announced the Korean TGV project. Building the faster railway system of the latest technology is believed to increase the industorial efficiency and thus improve the national competitiveness in an international market. Reducing the economic cost for transporting goods, the projected economic earning from this railway is estimated at about 9 million dollars per day once construction begins. Like the existing Kyongju Automobile Highway built in the 1960s, the proposed route was from Seoul to Pusan, the biggest port city in Korea, via Taejun, Kyongju in between. The Ministry of Construction and Traffic in charge of Korean TGV project planned the route mainly in consideration of construction cost and time, connecting to the existing railway systems, and promoting the industrial development near the area. In other words, the emphasis is given to the economic principle not the cultural heritage. The part of the route under controversy is Kyongju route that is 32km in length, 9 minutes in passing time.

As shown in the diagram in the following page, the proposed route was to run

In response to the criticism from the opposition, the Ministry of Construction and Traffic proposed a new plan to build an underground tunnel so that the train may go through the area while keeping the original route. The Ministry also proposed the railway station to be built 10km apart from the city center to avoid the sudden pressure of commercial development on the city of Kyongju. But this new proposal was rejected by the opposition on the ground that it still ran through the city center and furthermore, building an underground tunnel was not a safe alternative. While the controversies continued, different individuals and institutions concerned about the protection of the cultural properties made a collective effort to devise their own route plans in order to solve the problems. There were several proposals. What is common among those recommended by citizen organizations, scholars, the Ministry of Culture and Sports is that the railway should be built away from the city center and cultural properties as far as possible. One of these plan announced by local citizen organization called Citizen Organization for Economic Justice insisted that their proposal not only protect the cultural properties under danger but also cost less money and time for construction by shortening the route by 10kms.

After examining the several proposals from citizen organizations and members of cultural properties committee and the Ministry of Culture and Sports, the Ministry of Construction and Traffic still rejected their proposals on the ground that the newly proposed routes do not take the economic efficiency into consideration. And any change of the original plan would signify a tremendous financial loss for the whole country, denoting the astronomical cost for re-examining the new area, redesigning the plan along with land compensations.

After numerous hearings and symposiums, the project was finalized in January of 1997 by renouncing the original route and by adopting a new route, which will detour and run through the outskirts of Kyongju. The new route should be considered a victory for citizens and people who work and are devoted to preserving the cultural properties.

3. The Loss and The Gain

The controversy over how the Korean TGV pass the city of Kyongju could be easily characterized: a simple choice between economic development and the cultural heritage. Behind this seemingly simple choice exist complex and subtle processes of negotiations and compromises. The problem lies in the conflicting logics of economic development and the cultural heritage protection.

The original plan by the Ministry of Construction and Traffic took 2 year preparation which, as the Ministry maintained, includes the consultation with the specialists and related institutions regarding the protection of the cultural properties. But, it is not difficult to perceive the Ministry ignoring the detouring route for the one more economical. The call for the very dismissal of the Kyongju route itself by the opposition was unacceptable from the very beginning of the project. Politically, the current government was burdened with the pressures from the local developer and the promise made during the presidential election concerning the Kyongju development plan.

What we have learned is in order to conserve our cultural heritage, negotiations and compromises are required from all sides involved: including the immediate community, regional and national decision makers, businesses for development, cultural properties scholars and related institutions.

This tiring and time-consuming process is obviously the route everyone wants to avoid. Even if the conflict seems to be resolved at the moment, the same tension will exist as long as the developmental projects exist. The plans like building golf courses and racing tracks near cultural property sites are being reported and creating controversies of the similar kind.

Despite the immediate economic loss, we cannot underestimate the gain. Kyongju case was a historic and unprecedented event in the history of national policy making. For the first time, the value of the cultural heritage was considered more significant than the economic development, signalling a break from the chain of logic prevailing since 1960s. The interpretation of the property's value is relative and diverse. The value of the cultural property and responsibilities differ according to the levels of public recognition: namely immediate community, regional, national and international. For this reason, public consensus and priority concerning the heritage's value should be continuously defined.

CONCLUSION:

Based on the lessons we learned from this experience, I propose:

First, we have to create an enabling environment with appropriate policy and legal frameworks in which any groups with different proposals could work together with commitment and creativity. We must all learn skills of negotiations and patience. We must also fully understand the strategies for manipulating the political agenda.

Secondly, we need more carefully defined legal protection for cultural heritage in the case of inevitable development. It must be accompanied by strong regulations in order to control and to prevent damages. It would be effective to have a committee to review any developmental plan in the cultural heritage area.

Finally, in protecting the World Heritage, all nations should work closely with one another and share their experiences in order to develop more effective legal and cultural devices for the protection of the cultural heritage.